So, when an amino acid adds itself to a protein chain, the odds are one in two that it will be left-handed.

Jerry, what Ogre and I are trying telling you is that, under the right condition (e.g. temperature, solvent, catalyst, concentration of reactants), when an amino acid (in a racemic mixture) adds itself to a protein chain, the odds are exactly one that it will be left-handed. Well actually what we are trying to tell you is that there exists a spectrum of conditions that the reaction may occur in, and the odds will be anywhere between 0 and 1. You may disagree with that conclusion, but do you understand that's what we are trying to tell you? If so, re-read the links I've posted about kinetics, and if you still don't understand please tell us which part you don't understand, and we can go from there.

I should point out that we are not only claiming that there are conditions that will change the odds, but we've provided you with links, links so far you have conspicuously not engaged with. Have you not read them? Will you continue to claim we have not provided them?

Well I know which way I'm betting but since some people want to learn and some people don't, there's a 50% you'll read those links and try to figure out what they mean.

Take the ape-like creature morphing into homo sapiens....at some point in this supposed evolution, an ape has to cross the get-go line and birth a human....the species has to change in order for speciation to occur.

No. No. No. NO!

Small changes accumulate.

The amount of change from one generation to the next isn't expected to be any more than what we see today between one generation and the next.

The reason large changes aren't expected to emerge (at least not successfully) in one generation (or even a few) is basically what you said; offspring that's too different from its relatives would have trouble finding a mate, or mating successfully if it found one.

Speciation isn't a barrier; any barrier between two species is there because they've been accumulating changes separately for long enough for some of those differences to prevent interbreeding, or at least deter it.

Gary, are you ever going to provide a graph that, you know, has labeled axes? Just out of curiosity.

I'm planning on taking a look at what is possible for the next version of the program. At the moment I'm more concerned with getting the theory ready for printing of sample copies. This is already a major rush-job!

I wish I could afford to hire a programmer to convert the code to Java or other Planet Source Code supported language which has a free compiler available for those who want to experiment with it. Visual Basic is great for rapid software development, but now that Microsoft no longer supports it the language is at the same time rapidly declining in popularity.

--------------The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

So, saltations are our beginning point in ID. How did they get there as if someone or something etherally began to scatter new life forms across planet earth?

What saltations? Is there evidence somewhere that some species appeared without being a close relative of a nearby prior species? Keep in mind that low population species might not give us the courtesy of leaving fossils of themselves. Also species in areas that aren't conducive to fossilization are also apt to lack that sort of courtesy.

Quote

but has anybody ever scratched their head and said, wait....we may be wrong about this??

That's what competent scientists do all the time. If a theory doesn't work, they don't use it. If a theory isn't useful, they don't cling to a theory because they like it, or reject one due to dislike; likes and dislikes are not part of the criteria. (Where would global warming be if people had to like its conclusions for it to be acknowledged?) But the theory of evolution has been in use in research for over a century and a half, and there's no sign of a decline in usage of it.

Quote

Darwinian theory oversimplifies the process.

Are you kidding? The basic principles may be simple (variation and selection in a repeating loop), but changes in a species build on each other over time, so what's in the next generation is always contingent on what was in the previous generation.

Quote

True, intelligence has to be measured from the molecular intelligence (genome) level on up to our multicellular intelligence (brain) level.

What additional predictions of molecular or cellular behavior can be made due to insertion of the word "intelligence" in their descriptions, that can't be made without it? If there's not an addition prediction from doing that, then it only adds unnecessary complications to the subject.

Quote

The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

That's not a hypothesis, that's a claim that there is a hypothesis. To be a hypothesis, some set of observations has to be a logical consequence of the proposed hypothesis. In addition to that, a statement of a hypothesis should say what that hypothesis is, rather than contrasting it with another hypothesis.

Are you kidding? The basic principles may be simple (variation and selection in a repeating loop), but changes in a species build on each other over time, so what's in the next generation is always contingent on what was in the previous generation.

Quote

True, intelligence has to be measured from the molecular intelligence (genome) level on up to our multicellular intelligence (brain) level.

What additional predictions of molecular or cellular behavior can be made due to insertion of the word "intelligence" in their descriptions, that can't be made without it? If there's not an addition prediction from doing that, then it only adds unnecessary complications to the subject.

Quote

The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

That's not a hypothesis, that's a claim that there is a hypothesis. To be a hypothesis, some set of observations has to be a logical consequence of the proposed hypothesis. In addition to that, a statement of a hypothesis should say what that hypothesis is, rather than contrasting it with another hypothesis.

Henry

Your problem figuring out what I am explaining (and the need for layman's definitions for theory and hypothesis) is perhaps the best evidence there is of how oversimplified the Darwinian paradigm actually is. You will claim to understand how intelligent living things "evolved" yet you do not have a functional understanding of what intelligent life is.

Needing to make it seem like understanding how intelligence works only adds "unnecessary complications to the subject" is an excuse for staying with your oversimplifications. Needing endless predictions and falsification is just an attempt to unscientifically make your problem go away, so you don't have to get up to date in science.

--------------The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

10 points for arguing that while a current well-established theory predicts phenomena correctly, it doesn't explain "why" they occur, or fails to provide a "mechanism".

--------------"But it's disturbing to think someone actually thinks creationism -- having put it's hand on the hot stove every day for the last 400 years -- will get a different result tomorrow." -- midwifetoad

10 points for arguing that while a current well-established theory predicts phenomena correctly, it doesn't explain "why" they occur, or fails to provide a "mechanism".

oooh nice

bingo!

Quote

Your problem figuring out what I am explaining (and the need for layman's definitions for theory and hypothesis) is perhaps the best evidence there is of how oversimplified the Darwinian paradigm actually is.

actually, billybob, it is just an example of how muddled your thoughts are and how poorly you can describe them. nattering about "laymen" is easier to do than to actually provide a testable hypothesis, right?

you are so scared to do this. why?

--------------You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

Are you kidding? The basic principles may be simple (variation and selection in a repeating loop), but changes in a species build on each other over time, so what's in the next generation is always contingent on what was in the previous generation.

Quote

True, intelligence has to be measured from the molecular intelligence (genome) level on up to our multicellular intelligence (brain) level.

What additional predictions of molecular or cellular behavior can be made due to insertion of the word "intelligence" in their descriptions, that can't be made without it? If there's not an addition prediction from doing that, then it only adds unnecessary complications to the subject.

Quote

The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

That's not a hypothesis, that's a claim that there is a hypothesis. To be a hypothesis, some set of observations has to be a logical consequence of the proposed hypothesis. In addition to that, a statement of a hypothesis should say what that hypothesis is, rather than contrasting it with another hypothesis.

Henry

Your problem figuring out what I am explaining (and the need for layman's definitions for theory and hypothesis) is perhaps the best evidence there is of how oversimplified the Darwinian paradigm actually is. You will claim to understand how intelligent living things "evolved" yet you do not have a functional understanding of what intelligent life is.

Needing to make it seem like understanding how intelligence works only adds "unnecessary complications to the subject" is an excuse for staying with your oversimplifications. Needing endless predictions and falsification is just an attempt to unscientifically make your problem go away, so you don't have to get up to date in science.

When one (meaning you Gary) defines "intelligence" to mean "any activity" (including reacting with another molecule or atom and bacterial responses to the environment), then it's not US who have the issues with standard definitions.

--------------Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

There certainly is no scientific basis for postulating such a silly notion. And one has to leave the realm of science entirely to make it appear to walk.

Really? Did you forget to read the following research among many many others?Initial sequence of the chimpanzee genome and comparison with the human genomehttp://http/....ttp........ttp

"More than a century ago Darwin and Huxley posited that humans share recent common ancestors with the African great apes. Modern molecular studies have spectacularly confirmed this prediction and have refined the relationships, showing that the common chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes) and bonobo (Pan paniscus or pygmy chimpanzee) are our closest living evolutionary relatives."

Dead link....

But if that is the Eyre-Walker Keightley study I am VERY familiar with that paper.

In fact, it is a paper that disses complex macroevolution to the max, although that was not the intentions of the two evolutionary biologists who accomplished the study. *wink*

When one (meaning you Gary) defines "intelligence" to mean "any activity" (including reacting with another molecule or atom and bacterial responses to the environment), then it's not US who have the issues with standard definitions.

Since I don't have time to again go over the common/popular cognitive models the operational definition covers (as I already well enough did in the thread with my name on it) I'm off to my day job, again.

--------------The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

When one (meaning you Gary) defines "intelligence" to mean "any activity" (including reacting with another molecule or atom and bacterial responses to the environment), then it's not US who have the issues with standard definitions.

Since I don't have time to again go over the common/popular cognitive models the operational definition covers (as I already well enough did in the thread with my name on it) I'm off to my day job, again.

When you talk about intelligent molecules... whatever.

And developing correct graphs isn't one of things that you take care of whenever. That's one of the fundamentals of proper science communication... oh wait, I think I understand the problem.

--------------Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

I thought you were soldiers in the army of truth....educating the ignorant public about the stupidity of EVEN questioning such a concept as Divine Darwinism....The magical POOFING of people from apes....the ethreal and deeply spiritual birth of wierd, scary mammals from very confused and lonely whales...Isn't that your mantra? And what a mantra....the mystical Silurian..... the deep, Devonian darkness.....scary, and such confusion in both the evolving organisms and the learned ones that lay witness to them....I'm afraid it all boils down to faith, doesn't it, my friends so studious in your celestial mythology. Please feel free to call it science if you must....But the truth is, it is faith.

I hope I haven't destroyed your faith thus far........It's very important to have faith....... Keep saying...I believe...I believe....I believe.... :)

Isn't it strange that creationist accuse science of saying that species "poofed" into existence.

Evolution says no such thing, evolution says that species gradually evolved from earlier ancestral species, on the other hand creationists like yourself require exactly this!!

Jerry in your idea, species poof into existence, they don't evolve from ancestral lines! This is what you need to prove, independently of who or what the "intelligent agent" is or how he goes about his work. Not only this, you need to prove that large populations were poofed into existence (creating one t-rex won't help, you need to create a viable genetic population spread across a specific geographic area so hundreds of adult specimens). Never mind a lowly 500bt chain of amino acids. Your theory requires whole adult populations to be poofed in! This is your claim...right?

Just out of curiosity according to your theory, when the t-rex's were "poofed in" were they "poffed in" as eggs which needed to hatch (were the nests also provide in the poofing?) or as adults? Lastly please describe the last poofing event in detail, where, when, how etc...? (Please note that speciation, in quite a few species, is being currently studied, so you can indicate the poofing event/s in those studies).

--------------"Cows who know a moose when they see one will do infinitely better than a cow that pairs with a moose because they cannot see the difference either." Gary Gaulin

Your problem figuring out what I am explaining (and the need for layman's definitions for theory and hypothesis) is perhaps the best evidence there is of how oversimplified the Darwinian paradigm actually is.

It's only the basic principles can can be called simple; the details are quite messy.

But that aside, what predictions can be made when the concept of intelligence is inserted into the descriptions of molecules and cells, that can't be made without doing that?

What observed patterns of evidence are explained by those predictions?

QM is currently the best theory to explain the behavior of matter but it is inadequate for explaining what we need to know to begin answering the “big questions”. What is needed is theory similar to String Theory which also explains how consciousness works. Currently, this somewhat abstract but relevant video best explains the starting behavior that I have in mind:

Yes, everything is energy......that's why I was discussing the wave/particle function. Einstein taught us that energy=matter via E=MC^2, and since information is always matter (Can you think of any case where information isn't matter? Even simply reading a letter is neurons firing off in the brain) then we can further those musings for the purposes of Intelligent Design: E=M=I --

When I refer to QM, that is energy either in the form of a wave or a particle (solid) -- ALL matter can be viewed as both, and through quantum superpositioning, it can also be viewed as neither...LOL

Take electricity flowing through a plug-in in my house.....It is both a solid, I can measure flowing electrons in the form of amps, or I can measure it as a wave in the form of hertz.

That energy video you sent me to is really about QM because when we boil everything down, the smallest microstate that will eventual describe a given macrostate...i.e. us, planets, cars, mountains, God etc. are individual particles.

Please familiarize yourself with the double slit and delayed choice experiments and you will find INTELLIGENCE in those particles....it's there......in physics...not theology.

Of course, (and here's my opinion again) as philosophy, science and theology begins to blur together into one answer for all questions: QM... I'm amused to watch people kicking and screaming in incredulity as badly as when Gallileo valliently tried to correct an ignorant world: it wasn't the sun revolving around the earth, but bass ackwards..........YOU IDIOT...they screamed at him....(remind you of this forum? LOL)

It's simply amazing how science describes theology as we study both in one accord. A good example is the theological principle of life after death......that is really science......the law of conservation of energy states that matter (matter/energy) cannot be created nor destroyed, it can only be changed.

But people are particles...energy...can that energy ever be destroyed? Nope...Science says no way...upon the death of that individual, the particles that comprise life's energy within that individual can only change....it would violate the 1st law of thermodynamics to think that it 'dies.'

That's just one example of what I'k talking about.

Quote

I do not consider it philosophy. The best example here would be the field of Abiogenesis but here what is most important is how the starting behavior (of matter) produces the starting self-learning (intelligent) system (such as self-replicating RNA) which like a human zygote in time develops into us. The paradigm literally requires explaining the origin of life from the perspective of intelligence

I THINK would agree with this.....

Quote

Yes, molecular (or other) intelligence does not develop gradually. It has a curve like this:

Once again, the evidence ended up being best explained as having an “intelligent cause”.

Could you explain what you mean by 'memories' in that graph....I'm trying to understand you here. Are you referring to information such as one would find in a series of open and closed switches.....bits of data...stored on computer chips, as example...?

Quote

I agree, the current way of explaining the origin of species leaves much up to the imagination. Darwinian theory oversimplifies the process. The ID paradigm is more difficult to scientifically conceptualize. We see that in this forum by the number of “scientists” who cannot make sense of it, even where I do my best to explain. Ones like me who study intelligence have an easier time with it than those who only study “evolution”, such as evolutionary biologists. Their opinions are biased by their scientific world view which is also religious, and a tendency towards Atheism only increases this scientific bias.

You cannot explain yourself to many in here because they have a predisposed opinion already formed in their minds about anything you will ever say to them. They go to these Web Sites (like talk origin) that are as biased as the most wacky Ken Ham site you've ever read and take away a new religion. It's the way they train their flock....Have you noticed that MOST of the one's who want to argue with you on these sites seem fairly ignorant in science?

It's because they are.....everything they know about life origins they've learned from talk origins..lol

Quote

True, intelligence has to be measured from the molecular intelligence (genome) level on up to our multicellular intelligence (brain) level. Each level requires different testing methods, but the four requirements remain the same for each.

I would not say the QM is our Creator. QM is inadequate for explaining such a concept.

How so? If a God exists, you do not believe it is a God of energy? That is QM.....I'm not one to anthropomorphize the Creator as some guy with a long gray beard sitting on a cloud waving a divine rod around creating things...(don't sound like you are either).

If you'll study QM from this perspective, you might be surprised how suddenly all the pieces of the puzzle begin to fit together.

Quote

In this case it is important to remember that a newborn is already 9 months old when born. There are also instinctual responses which were learned at the cellular and molecular level, that are at the same time being expressed. Our brain produces just one of the levels of intelligence that exists in our behavior.

DNA produces everything in an organism from the physical perspective.

Quote

Actually that is from the “layman’s definition” for a scientific theory. I wrote this to explain what I now know about it:

DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SCIENTIFIC THEORY AND SCIENTIFIC HYPOTHESIS

Although there are many “proper definitions” the primary difference between a hypothesis (also stated as a "research question") and a theory is that a hypothesis is a testable true/false statement (or brief question) which might be only an untested educated guess. For example the observation that water increases in density as it cools infers "Ice is denser than water." while scientific theory explains hydrogen bonds which make ice less dense than liquid water which in turn will "predict" that this intuitive hypothesis is false.

A theory is a coherent explanation of a phenomenon, and will contain a number of hypotheses all explained together. In origin of life (abiogenesis) theory are a number of hypotheses and possible "worlds" like RNA World, DNA World, Metabolic World and Protein World. A theory does not ask a true/false question then perform a quick experiment to see whether it holds true or not, theory explains how a phenomenon such as "abiogenesis" or "intelligent cause" works and cannot be answered with a question a theory predicts its answer.

HOW A SCIENTIFIC THEORY WORKS

A “scientific theory” is a coherent explanation of how a phenomenon works. For a theory to be coherent there must be experiments (computer model, observation) to test all conclusions.

The "premise" of a theory is a statement that in as few words as possible sums up the phenomenon to be explained. Whatever else that is to be said must be made irrelevant otherwise it is too easy to allow rumor and misinterpretations to define a proposed theory instead of its premise.

This is the premise of the Theory of Intelligent Design:

Source: Discovery Institute http://www.discovery.org/csc........ons.phpThe theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

The phrase "intelligent cause" is the name of the phenomenon to be explained. The text of the theory “defines” intelligent cause to be similar to "emergent" causation. The mechanism producing this emergence must here be explained as an "intelligent" phenomenon for it to be a coherent theory, hence "intelligent cause".

In science something either exists or it does not. The word “supernatural” has no meaning other than the “unknown” or “unexplained”. Therefore no part of the premise or text of a theory may be given supernatural meaning, by anyone on any side of a controversy.

The word terminology used in each theory should reflect the areas of science of the phenomenon they cover, not each other. As a result the Theory Of Intelligent Design is an “origin of life” theory that requires terminology found primarily in robotics and Artificial Intelligence and never once mentions or borrows from Evolutionary Theory.

Words may not be used synonymously with each other unless the premise or the text of the theory makes it clear that both words are interchangeable. For example to falsely suggest that “intelligent cause” must be one of a number of deities explained in religious scriptures the word “cause” is often replaced using the word “agent” to produce the new phrase “intelligent agent” which can then be defined as they please to suit their argument. The only scientific response is to state that the rules do not allow this here, therefore a scientific reply is impossible and cannot be given until they rephrase their statement using terminology found in its premise (or where applicable the text of the theory).

All theories are “tentative” therefore can never be “proven true” or can be a “fact”. When tested a theory can only be “proven false” in which case it is incoherent, or again “holds true” in which case it remains a coherent theory. As is the case of Superstring Theory it is coherent enough to be a viable and “useful” theory even though there are known to be incoherencies in areas that are still being researched.

Karl Popper is known for applying philosophy to science to argue against the prevailing views of the scientific method by advancing empirical “falsification”. This made for a useful debate as to what science is. But in reality, finding a rabbit fossil from the Cambrian era would certainly puzzle scientists but the genetic algorithm models would still work fine. Therefore the “theory of evolution” would not be thrown right out of science just because of incoherence in a small part of the fossil record. One has to “believe” that falsification was good enough, which is a judgment call that easily leads to endless unproductive argument that can slow down even stop a theory from being written when critics automatically refuse any falsification no matter how good it is. Though there are many ways to as per Karl Popper falsify the Theory Of Intelligent Design it would be beyond the purpose of this writing to present all of that here.

For a theory to be “useful” it must make “predictions”. Otherwise it is “useless”. There is no requirement there be a list of them included in the text of the theory. But predictions should be included where they help explain what to look for in an experiment.

The scientific information is placed in a “logical construct” that provides a place for everything, to make it easy to put everything in its proper place. For example in this theory each emergent level of organization has its own “section” each with four “subsections” which represent the four requirements for “intelligence” and the first requirement is “something to control” such as robot motors, biological body, or at the molecular scale controlling cellular functions

The second part of the premise that follows the comma "not an undirected process such as natural selection." describes what the theory does not explain as the cause. We can here remove this part from the sentence leaving us only the part it does have to explain which is “The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause,”

To make it easier to gauge how closely the theory is following its premise the shortened sentence is completed by adding a short summation of what the theory can conclude pertaining to the phenomenon of intelligent cause. When we are on the right track there is a complete sentence that makes more sense together. When we are on the wrong track the sentence makes less sense together. In the case of a theory breaking a rule of science such as "...an intelligent cause that is supernatural therefore it cannot be tested" we can see right away that it is not a scientific theory, repeatable experiments to test the phenomenon must be possible from the explanation.

In a discipline such as science most are conditioned to do things one certain way using established theories. This can make it appear that a new one is not needed. It will then be ignored. To help prevent this complacency the rules of science do not allow dismissing a theory based on what was previously said about it. But at the time it does not always seem worth taking seriously. When almost all are doing the same it appears to be impossible for all to be wrong. Authors here work very hard and probably endure ridicule for their “unaccepted” theory to eventually become “accepted” which might not even be in their lifetime.

An existing theory is never evidence for or evidence against another. Where each explain entirely different phenomenon it is possible for both to be coherent.

I had university level help understanding the above. Do not even bother with what is being spread in forums like this one and by science educators who also believe that a hypothesis somehow graduates to theory. You can wait forever and the hypothesis that ice is more dense than liquid water will always be a hypothesis, even where it is changed and ice is less dense than water. Theory would explain why ice floats in liquid water. A hypothesis does not care why something happens it’s simply either true or false depending on the outcome of an experiment.

I would disagree with MUCH of that but certainly not all of it. In order to redefine the scientific method which is being done here (at least, it seems to me, to some degree), it is going to take much more than an endorsement from the Discovery Institute...

The hypothesis -----> theory -----> law methodology has worked well for the greats of scince and has brought us almost ALL the science we use in the lab today. And that methodology is taught the same today as it was a hundred years ago.

I would think the University of Rochester are hardly laymen when it comes to this stuff:

"An hypothesis is a limited statement regarding cause and effect in specific situations;"

"A scientific theory or law represents an hypothesis, or a group of related hypotheses, which has been confirmed through repeated experimental tests."

If I understand you correctly, that doesn't seem to be what you are saying.....in fact how could: "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection" ever be tested experimentally??

Nor could Popperian though ever falsify it, I'm afraid...

We have to step away from stretching stuff like this....it's one reason some knowlegeable people laugh at us...

Quote

Where the “layman’s definition” for a theory is used, I would have to agree that you are correct. Problem here though, is the layman’s definition is simply wrong, and leads to problems like this. After adding Popper philosophy all theories can be said to not be a theory. It’s just another science stopper.

Absolutely false...First, why do you consider major university science departments as "Laymen?" It's where scientists go to be trained. But I can assure you that theories of science CAN be falsified. Indeed another tenet of the scientific method is that a theory will stand until it is shown to be wrong (falsified) or a better theory comes along to replace it.

If one has to redefine the scientific method in order to get their postulates to fit within it, then they are whipped before they ever get to the fight. AND....that postulate will never be taken taken seriously by those who know better.

Quote

I agree. That’s what I seek to better understand. It’s “just science” but at the same time is spiritual, a religious search for how we were created, our purpose in life, etc..

But science and the spiritual are the same things...if one thinks they are not, then there is something about one side or they other they are not understanding..Science says we have a non-mind within us..

Quote

What you are now describing is like in the Everything Is Energy video I linked to, but with the source of consciousness added to the equation. Once that is better understood we can begin to answer the really big questions. The scientific theory I’m working on is another necessary step in that direction, but of course we still have a long journey of discovery ahead of us before we can claim to have “found God” by following the scientific evidence, where it leads.

Yup...but it is not me adding intelligence into the matter/energy inigma, it is scientific experimentation. We KNOW it is there....our next task is to understand it.

Take the ape-like creature morphing into homo sapiens....at some point in this supposed evolution, an ape has to cross the get-go line and birth a human....the species has to change in order for speciation to occur.

No. No. No. NO!

Small changes accumulate.

The amount of change from one generation to the next isn't expected to be any more than what we see today between one generation and the next.

The reason large changes aren't expected to emerge (at least not successfully) in one generation (or even a few) is basically what you said; offspring that's too different from its relatives would have trouble finding a mate, or mating successfully if it found one.

Speciation isn't a barrier; any barrier between two species is there because they've been accumulating changes separately for long enough for some of those differences to prevent interbreeding, or at least deter it.

Henry

OK, Henry....And ...BTW, thanks for your intelligent, civil posts......speciation happens in small increments....I'm all over that...

But the bottom line has to speak at some point.

And the bottom line says:...at at SOME point...a new species must emerge...that's what speciation IS.

So, At that point when speciation occurs, the proginating species will have to have, by the very definition of the word speciation, give birth to an entirely new species.

That new species will then not be able to interbreed with it's predecessors and must interbreed ONLY with it's own...new...species....

Science says nope......that original birth of a viable (it can live), fertile, (it too can produce offspring) new species isn't going to happen.

What saltations? Is there evidence somewhere that some species appeared without being a close relative of a nearby prior species? Keep in mind that low population species might not give us the courtesy of leaving fossils of themselves. Also species in areas that aren't conducive to fossilization are also apt to lack that sort of courtesy.

What saltations? YES there is evidence that some species appeared without an evolutionary history leading up to them....They ALL did......Never heard of the Cambrian Explosion?

Quote

That's what competent scientists do all the time. If a theory doesn't work, they don't use it. If a theory isn't useful, they don't cling to a theory because they like it, or reject one due to dislike; likes and dislikes are not part of the criteria. (Where would global warming be if people had to like its conclusions for it to be acknowledged?) But the theory of evolution has been in use in research for over a century and a half, and there's no sign of a decline in usage of it.

I'm afraid there is no such thing as a theory of evolution...a hypothesis of evolution, yes, but a theory....no.

They have had 150 years to accomplish this experimental testing, yes, but none has been done in a laboratory.

And I'll agree that that if evidence comes along to overturn a theory, most scientists would begin to question a scientific concept.

But saltation has been a fact of evidence against gradualistic evolution from the git-go....Why aren't evolutionary biologists out there questioning their internalized precepts????????? They just blindly plod on and attempt to explain it away.

Of course, (and here's my opinion again) as philosophy, science and theology begins to blur together into one answer for all questions: QM... I'm amused to watch people kicking and screaming in incredulity as badly as when Gallileo valliently tried to correct an ignorant world: it wasn't the sun revolving around the earth, but bass ackwards..........YOU IDIOT...they screamed at him....(remind you of this forum? LOL)

“They laughed at Galileo. They laughed at Newton. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.” - Carl Sagan

Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Dec. 03 2012,08:55)

I THINK would agree with this.....

Quote

Yes, molecular (or other) intelligence does not develop gradually. It has a curve like this:

Once again, the evidence ended up being best explained as having an “intelligent cause”.

Take the ape-like creature morphing into homo sapiens....at some point in this supposed evolution, an ape has to cross the get-go line and birth a human....the species has to change in order for speciation to occur.

No. No. No. NO!

Small changes accumulate.

The amount of change from one generation to the next isn't expected to be any more than what we see today between one generation and the next.

The reason large changes aren't expected to emerge (at least not successfully) in one generation (or even a few) is basically what you said; offspring that's too different from its relatives would have trouble finding a mate, or mating successfully if it found one.

Speciation isn't a barrier; any barrier between two species is there because they've been accumulating changes separately for long enough for some of those differences to prevent interbreeding, or at least deter it.

Henry

OK, Henry....And ...BTW, thanks for your intelligent, civil posts......speciation happens in small increments....I'm all over that...

But the bottom line has to speak at some point.

And the bottom line says:...at at SOME point...a new species must emerge...that's what speciation IS.

So, At that point when speciation occurs, the proginating species will have to have, by the very definition of the word speciation, give birth to an entirely new species.

That new species will then not be able to interbreed with it's predecessors and must interbreed ONLY with it's own...new...species....

Science says nope......that original birth of a viable (it can live), fertile, (it too can produce offspring) new species isn't going to happen.

Listen, sweetie. Put down the toys for a second and listen.

It's not "at SOME point". it's an incremental process and can even reverse. there is no magical point at which speciation occurs.

Not that you give a shit. Did you get this one from Ray Comfort?

--------------You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

There certainly is no scientific basis for postulating such a silly notion. And one has to leave the realm of science entirely to make it appear to walk.

Really? Did you forget to read the following research among many many others?Initial sequence of the chimpanzee genome and comparison with the human genomehttp://http/....ttp........ttp

"More than a century ago Darwin and Huxley posited that humans share recent common ancestors with the African great apes. Modern molecular studies have spectacularly confirmed this prediction and have refined the relationships, showing that the common chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes) and bonobo (Pan paniscus or pygmy chimpanzee) are our closest living evolutionary relatives."

Dead link....

But if that is the Eyre-Walker Keightley study I am VERY familiar with that paper.

In fact, it is a paper that disses complex macroevolution to the max, although that was not the intentions of the two evolutionary biologists who accomplished the study. *wink*

Take the ape-like creature morphing into homo sapiens....at some point in this supposed evolution, an ape has to cross the get-go line and birth a human....the species has to change in order for speciation to occur.

No. No. No. NO!

Small changes accumulate.

The amount of change from one generation to the next isn't expected to be any more than what we see today between one generation and the next.

The reason large changes aren't expected to emerge (at least not successfully) in one generation (or even a few) is basically what you said; offspring that's too different from its relatives would have trouble finding a mate, or mating successfully if it found one.

Speciation isn't a barrier; any barrier between two species is there because they've been accumulating changes separately for long enough for some of those differences to prevent interbreeding, or at least deter it.

Henry

OK, Henry....And ...BTW, thanks for your intelligent, civil posts......speciation happens in small increments....I'm all over that...

But the bottom line has to speak at some point.

And the bottom line says:...at at SOME point...a new species must emerge...that's what speciation IS.

So, At that point when speciation occurs, the proginating species will have to have, by the very definition of the word speciation, give birth to an entirely new species.

That new species will then not be able to interbreed with it's predecessors and must interbreed ONLY with it's own...new...species....

Science says nope......that original birth of a viable (it can live), fertile, (it too can produce offspring) new species isn't going to happen.

Define species. Then you will know when a new one occurs.

Unfortunately, these concepts somewhat defy definition. I asked you to look up "cline". Have you done so yet?

That would make it very clear.

--------------Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

Isn't it strange that creationist accuse science of saying that species "poofed" into existence.

Evolution says no such thing, evolution says that species gradually evolved from earlier ancestral species, on the other hand creationists like yourself require exactly this!!

Evolution doesn't say that all...Darwinism does...evolution is only a change in the gene pool of a population over time.

But can you see why some view this 'species morphing from that one'; and 'this other one spewing out of this one'; as "poofs"? At the least there seems magic involved...there is certainly nothing in science that would foster this notion.

It all sounds like something out of Aesop's Fables to an independant observer. That's why no one buys it it but a select few of the very gullible and those pushing a religious agenda.

Quote

Jerry in your idea, species poof into existence, they don't evolve from ancestral lines!

It's true that they don't evolve from ancestral lines, but there is no poofing involved. I know that they were designed.

Lawn Mowers are designed too by design engineers, do you think they ALSO just poof into existence? If you do, we have some discussions awaiting us...

Quote

This is what you need to prove, independently of who or what the "intelligent agent" is or how he goes about his work. Not only this, you need to prove that large populations were poofed into existence (creating one t-rex won't help, you need to create a viable genetic population spread across a specific geographic area so hundreds of adult specimens). Never mind a lowly 500bt chain of amino acids. Your theory requires whole adult populations to be poofed in! This is your claim...right?

First, science doesn't prove anything, it foments theories which will stand until they are falsified or another, better theoiry comes along to replace it.

And I agree that I would need to show populations coming into existence all at once...but I ALREADY have that evidence. It's in the fossil record...You seem like an educated man, do I really need to walk you through the Cambrian Explosion?

Quote

Just out of curiosity according to your theory, when the t-rex's were "poofed in" were they "poffed in" as eggs which needed to hatch (were the nests also provide in the poofing?) or as adults?

So this is the old which came first, the T-Rex or the egg conundrum?.....

Quote

Lastly please describe the last poofing event in detail, where, when, how etc...? (Please note that speciation, in quite a few species, is being currently studied, so you can indicate the poofing event/s in those studies).

I'm afraid there is no such thing as a theory of evolution...a hypothesis of evolution, yes, but a theory....no.

They have had 150 years to accomplish this experimental testing, yes, but none has been done in a laboratory.

The theory of evolution provides an explanation for the diversity of organisms including the mechanisms for these changes.

That's what a theory does.

Experimental support? Seriously, you think there is none? Why haven't you read the Lenski Lab's paper yet then? Incontrovertible evidence of not only how the changes happened and spread through the population (mutation and natural selection), but what changes happened (which portions of the DNA changed).

--------------Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

And I agree that I would need to show populations coming into existence all at once...but I ALREADY have that evidence. It's in the fossil record...You seem like an educated man, do I really need to walk you through the Cambrian Explosion?

Why stop at the so-called Cambrian explosion? It is such a short time, on the order of millions of years or something like that. Was the factory closed down when the Cambrium "ended"?

Why not walk us all the way from Cambrium to Holocene?

BTW - holes in the fossil record doesn't really constitue proof that species was not evolving in the interim.

I'm afraid there is no such thing as a theory of evolution...a hypothesis of evolution, yes, but a theory....no.

fuck i guess we are all out of a job then

hey jerry don't tell anyone OK just post it on blogs that way no one will ever give a shit but you

anyone else here think this idiot is deliberately trolling? Which of one you is billybob again? PM me you cretinous doppelganger you

I'm tempted to say he's trolling - incoherent posts, lots of "LOLs" and "WINKs", it screams troll. That's why I find it increasingly hard to even discuss his ideas, and I admire those who still do. I mean, I love to talk about evolution with my neighbours' kids aged 10 and 12, but Mr Bauer ???